Why can’t the new right communicate except in terms of cruelty? Is it a cold, calculated plan as a strategy, the “everything is going according to plan” or does it express something deeper?
For now, let’s take it as a revelation. Equally revealing was verifying that the so-called “anarcho-capitalism” ended up showing itself in these years to be incredibly attached to the authoritarian adventure: above all regulatory of morality, personal relationships and police preservation of gender roles in crisis. In other words: it was not a commitment to a fully contractual society – which would facilitate collaboration and exclude violence without the need for the State – but rather the attempt to eliminate the limits of the law to release abuses that violate basic rights: racism, xenophobia, misogyny, religious censorship, clerical intervention in State decisions, etc. It is like the freedom to hang people and not let the State interfere with its “political correctness.”
Mileism is anti-abortion to the extreme. Abortion is not conceptually punishable in the anarcho-capitalist utopia where all retaliation is the product of a private claim. The embryo would be “represented” by the mother, it would be difficult to think about the father even in that instance, but never by an impartial third party like the State because this radical position does not admit it. So no, mileism, paleoliberalism and the anarcho-capitalism of characters like your admired Jesús Huerta de Soto, is not libertarian at all: it is a rebellion against the State that is managed by the rule of law and excludes its preferred paradise, that of the law of the strongest. A law of the strongest that continued to subsist through conceptual and moral devices such as segregation, organized, omnipresent, its ideas about large families, blondes if possible, with very violently determined gender stereotypes and celebrated as a normality that no “crazy” would dare to question.
What was presented as liberal pacifism, perhaps a little naive, rIt turned out to be a speech that hid a rebellion against the most basic rules of coexistence, a rebellion in favor of violence by private initiative, where religion with political power better represents the intention than the paradise invoked to cover up the plan. The anger, the anger, the disqualifying and sexist language now represent the loss of a centrality, the loss of silent power, so powerful that it did not need to be put into words, much less shout, at least not all the time: it was simply the obvious realm of things as they should be. Now the only words they can use are the most unsustainable insults and hyperbole.
Indignation expresses this weakening and also the impossibility of giving moral authority to the project explicitly. The loss of legitimacy of that silent and forceful power, which, Guglielmo Ferrero would say, aroused the wrath of the city’s invisible goblins.
Because if they had to present it, it would be clear that Its real model is a caste system based on income, skin color, sex, origin and way of living, something that has nothing of freedom.
Getting angry is a way of not facing arguments. It is shouting all the time that any other way of looking at these issues is inconceivable, twisted, “abnormal.” Let it be an act of courage to argue. It is no different from the old customs of discipline: before, normalization was exercised without resistance, without the need for explicit violence. It was a passive-aggressive system, silent and effective, where power did not have to justify itself because no one questioned it. Because it was socially legitimate through moralistic sources and customs.
But now that system was forced to become a purely reactive discourse: loud, organized, complicit, but also weak and afraid. Either they scream, or any word will hurt them to death. It is the cry of those who do not want to hear, because they know that their world is dissolving. The objective is always the same: to lead the discussion to established norms, to supposedly comfortable certainties – “what is normal”, “what God wants”, “what culture is”, “the West”, the Christ in which they believe – so as not to have to respond to reasons or revise arguments or create ones they never had.
And here is the crux: the problem is not the “offended” people who speak; The problem is that they declare themselves offended because others talk about the evil that they so comfortably exercised, with moral authority as well.. Suddenly they are no longer treated as moralists on a pedestal, something they believe they are entitled to, but as perpetrators of systematic exclusion, which better describes what they are. It’s the tantrum of someone who says: “How do you say that to me, if I’m the normal one? I’m the one who is the way it should be. I wasn’t the one punished at home or the one mocked at school. I’m the unquestionable one. What kind of virus bit you that you’re now questioning me?”
That “white” world, really whitened, so omnipresent and effective that it could remain invisible—overlaid, naturalized—seemed like air: it was there but could not be seen. Until an infection called “woke” pulled the rug out from under them. And then, for the first time, they had to hear what they had never had to hear: that others exist, that they can talk and study, that they can know more than them, be more productive and be happier. Someone for them socialized, in an inconceivable way, the right to happiness, which also lowers the price of their enormous sacrifice to fit in and be safe. What if all that investment was not only useless but now discredited? They get angry because they are faced with what they themselves lost.
*José Benegas is a writer and essayist.
You may also be interested
by José Benegas
